They slaved away to make this game. They're passionate about it. They want people to see it. They also want to get money from it. They don't want to sit for 7 months with their creation in the closet.

I know that if I worked on a piece of art (analogy, nothing to do with games as art) and then as soon as I finished it I was told that I had to work on a new piece and wasn't allowed to show it to anyone until I was finished, I would be pretty pissed.

As an in-house developer I don't believe they get paid based on the success of a game. They've already been paid to make the game. That was their job.

A more accurate analogy would be the team hired to build a motorcycle gets paid to make it. The owner then keeps the motorcycle in storage until they feel like riding it, and then hires them to make a different motorcycle.

It's not a perfect metaphor, since there aren't many other businesses that have crunch time, but the fact is they were paid to do a job, and they did it. What the publisher, their boss does with the game after they finish it is none of their concern.

No.

The publisher simply invests in the project and should only have enough control to protect that investment. Likewise, the developer should have enough control to protect their creative endeavors.

This is where they clash, as the publisher sees their investment is in jeopardy, while the developer sees that their creation is in jeopardy because of the publisher's decisions. While the publisher believes the best move is to delay the game to release it to a wider audience and recoup their investment, the developer knows this will only hurt the game and should have every right to protect it and the emotional investment that their fans have made.

Even if it was fully the publisher's decision, they shouldn't be allowed to make it if it were universally seen as a bad move by the developers, the game's audience, the platform holders, and any and all interested parties. By having the best interests of the game at heart, the developer also has the best interests of the publisher at heart, in this specific case.

That is not the developers job, plain and simple. If they don't like it they should get into another field, or go indie. Publishers are there for a reason. We might not always like their decisions, but nine times out of ten the business is much better off having people who know what they're doing in charge of those matters.

As an in-house developer I don't believe they get paid based on the success of a game. They've already been paid to make the game. That was their job.

A more accurate analogy would be the team hired to build a motorcycle gets paid to make it. The owner then keeps the motorcycle in storage until they feel like riding it, and then hires them to make a different motorcycle.

It's not a perfect metaphor, since there aren't many other businesses that have crunch time, but the fact is they were paid to do a job, and they did it. What the publisher, their boss does with the game after they finish it is none of their concern.

The publishers fund the game. And they already had one game which didn't sell well to start. Ubisoft want to do the same thing mistakes with Legends that they did with Origins, which led to its poor sales.

Also, on a side note. What's your agenda against them releasing the game early? What do you have against them releasing a finished game at the stated release date instead of keeping it from the public eye for 7 months so they can release it alongside the other versions.

And finally. The only people who stop things from happening are those who say "It probably won't have any effect". No harm is done in doing it, so why not try for the sake of the small chance?

As an in-house developer I don't believe they get paid based on the success of a game. They've already been paid to make the game. That was their job.

A more accurate analogy would be the team hired to build a motorcycle gets paid to make it. The owner then keeps the motorcycle in storage until they feel like riding it, and then hires them to make a different motorcycle.

It's not a perfect metaphor, since there aren't many other businesses that have crunch time, but the fact is they were paid to do a job, and they did it. What the publisher, their boss does with the game after they finish it is none of their concern.

The publishers fund the game. And they already had one game which didn't sell well to start. Ubisoft want to do the same thing mistakes with Legends that they did with Origins, which led to its poor sales.

Also, on a side note. What's your agenda against them releasing the game early? What do you have against them releasing a finished game at the stated release date instead of keeping it from the public eye for 7 months so they can release it alongside the other versions.

And finally. The only people who stop things from happening are those who say "It probably won't have any effect". No harm is done in doing it, so why not try for the sake of the small chance?

It doesn't matter if it's a mistake or not. It's Ubisoft's call to make. If the devs don't like it they should work somewhere else.

I don't have an agenda. I don't really care about Rayman. This is just silly, childish behavior. No one likes that.

We don't know what harm may or may not be done. It would be arrogance to assume we do, considering we know almost nothing about why they made the choices they made. I already brought up a posibility that is more than a reasonable justification for delay. It's safe to assume that the people who get paid to think of those options already thought of it and a dozen more on top of it.

I admit it's been a while since I've looked at the material, but I seem to recall the PC version being finished for quite some time while the Devs worked on the Xbox/PS3 versions of the game. With Alpha Protocol, Sega simply sat on the code and outright refused to let Obsidian work on it while the release date clock ran out.

And I didn't mean Nintendo, I meant the people who bought a WiiU. It's understandable they'd be upset, but the Devs have already been paid. When the game is released is none of their concern.

And it's possible it might hurt Ubisoft, but I imagine there's someone on the payroll who's job it is to determine risk-reward data.

I checked it up before I posted. That might not be true, but that's what they claim.

The devs have already been paid and it's none of their concern? What happens to the devs if the game doesn't sell enough to warrant their services again? Their services will no longer be needed, they wont have a job anymore.

Now this brings me over to this coming back to hurt Ubisoft. Now Ubisoft was going to release their game for a brand new console. Now judging by the popularity of Mario games I'd say platformers are quite popular among Nintendo fans. Now they could have managed to be 25% of the market on Wii U and with a game in a popular genre to boot.

Now they delayed the game in order to release it on two different consoles. Now their game will be competing against such games as GTA V and Splinter Cell which are also released around this time of the year. No don't worry, Nintendo fans aren't going to be upset about a 10 month delay at this point. It's not like they have anything better coming up, such as a new generation of Pokemon.

Also funny you should say this:

And I didn't mean Nintendo, I meant the people who bought a WiiU. It's understandable they'd be upset

How is the games being released the responsibility of the consumer? How is it our responsibility that companies stay on time? Also you say it's understandable that they get upset? That is the opposite of what you originally said.

Mcoffey:Seriously? This is a thing? Grow up. I mean, seriously, if the game is good why do you care if it's played now or in six months. They should be happy more people get to play their game. Now or six months from now, it doesn't matter.

I can understand why people are upset by this. It really sucks. I'm glad that ultimately it is not going be exclusive because exclusivity doesn't help anyone. It is completely retarded that they are not releasing it for the WiiU as the game is done and ready for release. The creators have every right to be mad as this is vindication for their work, especially since they worked so hard to integrate the tablet controller as a way that is not just a tacked on feature.

To me, it sounds like they have no faith in this title. They sound like they are worried that the game will be released on the WiiU, get poor reviews, be not well received by the user base, and then they are wasting money by porting it to other systems. I think they are put off by how crappy ZombieU was. It was not well received, it was gimmicky with the control setup, and it was overall not a very good title. That is not the WiiU's fault, nor the WiiU customer base. It feels like they are punishing the audience for them releasing a crappy game.

I admit it's been a while since I've looked at the material, but I seem to recall the PC version being finished for quite some time while the Devs worked on the Xbox/PS3 versions of the game. With Alpha Protocol, Sega simply sat on the code and outright refused to let Obsidian work on it while the release date clock ran out.

And I didn't mean Nintendo, I meant the people who bought a WiiU. It's understandable they'd be upset, but the Devs have already been paid. When the game is released is none of their concern.

And it's possible it might hurt Ubisoft, but I imagine there's someone on the payroll who's job it is to determine risk-reward data.

I checked it up before I posted. That might not be true, but that's what they claim.

The devs have already been paid and it's none of their concern? What happens to the devs if the game doesn't sell enough to warrant their services again? Their services will no longer be needed, they wont have a job anymore.

Now this brings me over to this coming back to hurt Ubisoft. Now Ubisoft was going to release their game for a brand new console. Now judging by the popularity of Mario games I'd say platformers are quite popular among Nintendo fans. Now they could have managed to be 25% of the market on Wii U and with a game in a popular genre to boot.

Now they delayed the game in order to release it on two different consoles. Now their game will be competing against such games as GTA V and Splinter Cell which are also released around this time of the year. No don't worry, Nintendo fans aren't going to be upset about a 10 month delay at this point. It's not like they have anything better coming up, such as a new generation of Pokemon.

Also funny you should say this:

And I didn't mean Nintendo, I meant the people who bought a WiiU. It's understandable they'd be upset

How is the games being released the responsibility of the consumer? How is it our responsibility that companies stay on time? Also you say it's understandable that they get upset? That is the opposite of what you originally said.

Mcoffey:Seriously? This is a thing? Grow up. I mean, seriously, if the game is good why do you care if it's played now or in six months. They should be happy more people get to play their game. Now or six months from now, it doesn't matter.

Please, make up your mind.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough for you. I'll try to elaborate. People who have purchased a WiiU can be understandably upset because there are about four games exclusive to the WiiU worth buying and Rayman was one of them. Now it's not. None of that affects the developer of the game, whome I was referring to in my original post.

And that is one theory in which this may appear to be a mistake (Although I would argue Nintendo fans like Mario games, not so much just platforming in general). I'm sure they've taken that consideration. Since the game isn't out yet that doesn't make them wrong, or you right. It's all speculation at this point, and they've chosen a different possibility that's just as valid as the one you've come up with.

And it's possible that if the game isn't successful Ubisoft will feel they need to get rid of what appears to be a weak link. Again, I point to the nature of the beast. It sucks, but such is life working for a major publisher with thousands of employees. They're definitely not helping their case any by all this though. If/When the chopping block does come around, who's Ubisoft going to find more valuable? The employees who gritted their teeth and worked with them, or the one's who raised a big stink on the internet?

DVS BSTrD:Is it even finished? Otherwise this seems like a pretty stupid idea rushing the release.

It's gone gold for Wii U, but not for other consoles.

Alright I missed that. I don't see the point in waiting for the other two consols. Do they not wait to provide incentive for buying a Wii-U or something? Early releases would sure be a nice perk.

They definitely are, just look at Resident Evil 4 and it's temporary exclusiveness on the GameCube, it sold like hot-cakes and when it was ported to PS2, even if it was a graphically inferior version, it still kept selling like hot-cakes.

Seriously, if the game itself is any good (and I hope it is) and if there's still interest in the game, if the multiplatform version gets released a few months later, people will still buy it, if it gets released for PC, I know I would.

1: Part of the "protest" is that the developers and even the creator of Rayman are expressing dissatisfaction towards ubisoft. There are differing reasons among others, but the point is people are complaining about Ubisoft's practices, be it the delay, the lack of exclusivity or the treatment of the employees. There's more to it than it not being a WiiU exclusive at this point.

2: At least this "protest" isn't sending in death threats or sending complaints to a federal agency unlike some others...but then, taking the more extreme examples using it to paint the entire thing would be "dishonest", wouldn't it? :P

Nothing new to me. Another company run by idiots makes, as Samuel Jackson/Nick Fury would put it, a stupid-ass decision. How are they going to get things the turning wheel sections in the game's demo to work on the Xbox/PS3 though?

Fucking damn right. Good to see Michel Ancel and co get onboard with this.

As far as I'm aware, the only reason the games industry is able to get away with ridiculous shit like this is because it's one of the last industries to remain un-unionised. One day soon, hopefully, developers will be able to get unions to protect them from flagrant corporate abuse such as this. Until that happens, however, it's great to see developers actually take a stand against the publishers, even if its a small thing like this. Nothing will change as long as we keep excusing the status quo.

Your entire argument is basically: games development is shitty, deal with it. To which I respond:

1) How does that in any way justify Ubisoft screwing over their own developers at the last minute. Sure, they're contractors, they do a job, whatever. That still doesn't change the fact that they spent the last six months, according to a developer quote, doing massive amounts of overtime in order to get the game good to go. They literally spent the last six months barely seeing their wives, children and families in order to get this thing done. They were doing so on the assumption that after February, they'd have some down time in order to recuperate.

Now, not only has Ubisoft told them that all that crunch time was wasted (and by implication, all that time they could have been with their families), but that they're going to have to spend the next 7 months porting the game over to other consoles. Other consoles which, in prior interviews, they've explicitly said they're not planning to port to because of the way the game has been designed around the Wii U. That is just shitty, no matter what sort of contract you're working. I'm currently a contract worker. If my boss comes up to me and tells me that my last two weeks work has been fantastic, but due to management it's all going to be wasted, then he is still a massive cunt.

2) Developers are real people, not monkeys. If development is a shitty job, then surely we as gamers should be campaigning for the industry to make it better? Yeah, crunch time is always going to be around, but when you're looking at the way developers are currently getting screwed, surely the only answer is to say it's not fucking worth it, and support developers when they actually try and change something, no matter how small? Because if nothing gets challenged, nothing gets changed. If Ancel and his team are able to not only get Legends released sooner, but also bring attention to how developers are treated as disposable trash by publishers, then just maybe we can start to get the ball rolling on some large scale change within the industry? Wouldn't it be great if we could get great games made by developers who actually enjoy their jobs, and don't feel chained to their desks?

Dexter111:LOL, of course this is a "protest" now, while the people back in the day being pissed about Bayonetta 2 were being "childish" :P

Obviously Nintendo fans, furious over buying what turns out to be a rather useless console couldn't be childish :P

Well done on spectacularly missing the point. Seriously, that takes some doing.

Bayonetta 2 is a game that got cancelled by Sega. The only reason it's in development at all is because Nintendo stepped in and offered to finance it instead. Therefore, without Nintendo, the game wouldn't exist at all. Anyone who objects to that is simply a spiteful ignoramus, as the only alternative is for there to be no Bayonetta 2 at all.

Rayman Legends, on the other hand, is a game that is done, completed, finished. It was meant to be released in November, then got pushed to February. And now. literally 2 weeks away from release, Ubisoft has said that although the game is finished and ready to go, they're going to hold onto it while the developers are made to work on a multi-plat version.

That is what people object to. Not the fact that it's no longer an exclusive, but the fact that Ubisoft is sitting on a finished game for no reason, and is deciding to instead release it in one of the busiest periods of the gaming year.

I want to give my money to Ubisoft. Seriously, Legends is a good enough game that I am actually wanting to throw money at Ubisoft to get the game. And according to the developers, the game is done. There shouldn't be an issue here. Ubisoft wants my money, and I want to give it to them. I really do.

Am I still going to want to give them my money for Rayman in September? I very much doubt it. There's a new GTA game coming out. There's a new generation of Pokemon coming out, and a three-dimensional one to boot. There's a new Splinter Cell coming out. And then there's the pre-Christmas onslaught of triple-A titles, all of which are going to be competing for my wallet money. And I only have so much money to spend on games.

There is almost literally nothing coming out for the Wii U this month. I would happily go out and buy one right now if I knew Rayman Legends was coming in two weeks. Come March, more high-profile games like Monster Hunter are going to start getting released, and the line-up is only going to get more crowded as the year goes on. Not only will there be the triple-A multiplats to compete with, but Nintendo is going to start releasing its own heavy hitters for the console. Not only are titles going to be announced at GDC and E3, but Wind Waker HD is being confirmed as released in the same window as Legends. Why would you want to go up against that, when there is literally no competition now? What possible benefit could there be?

And I don't know about you, but anyone calling a console 'rather useless' is infinitely more childish in my eyes than any eager Nintendo fan could hope to be.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:Well done on spectacularly missing the point. Seriously, that takes some doing.

Bayonetta 2 is a game that got cancelled by Sega. The only reason it's in development at all is because Nintendo stepped in and offered to finance it instead. Therefore, without Nintendo, the game wouldn't exist at all. Anyone who objects to that is simply a spiteful ignoramus, as the only alternative is for there to be no Bayonetta 2 at all.

Rayman Legends, on the other hand, is a game that is done, completed, finished. It was meant to be released in November, then got pushed to February. And now. literally 2 weeks away from release, Ubisoft has said that although the game is finished and ready to go, they're going to hold onto it while the developers are made to work on a multi-plat version.

That is what people object to. Not the fact that it's no longer an exclusive, but the fact that Ubisoft is sitting on a finished game for no reason, and is deciding to instead release it in one of the busiest periods of the gaming year.

I want to give my money to Ubisoft. Seriously, Legends is a good enough game that I am actually wanting to throw money at Ubisoft to get the game. And according to the developers, the game is done. There shouldn't be an issue here. Ubisoft wants my money, and I want to give it to them. I really do.

Am I still going to want to give them my money for Rayman in September? I very much doubt it. There's a new GTA game coming out. There's a new generation of Pokemon coming out, and a three-dimensional one to boot. There's a new Splinter Cell coming out. And then there's the pre-Christmas onslaught of triple-A titles, all of which are going to be competing for my wallet money. And I only have so much money to spend on games.

There is almost literally nothing coming out for the Wii U this month. I would happily go out and buy one right now if I knew Rayman Legends was coming in two weeks. Come March, more high-profile games like Monster Hunter are going to start getting released, and the line-up is only going to get more crowded as the year goes on. Not only will there be the triple-A multiplats to compete with, but Nintendo is going to start releasing its own heavy hitters for the console. Not only are titles going to be announced at GDC and E3, but Wind Waker HD is being confirmed as released in the same window as Legends. Why would you want to go up against that, when there is literally no competition now? What possible benefit could there be?

And I don't know about you, but anyone calling a console 'rather useless' is infinitely more childish in my eyes than any eager Nintendo fan could hope to be.

Their Facebook page being spammed by people complaining that the game isn't exclusive anymore, they are "betraying" Nintendo and that "Nintendo needs this and $%§%& Ubisoft" tells an entirely different story. Unfortunately I can't find the picture of that anymore, or I would have posted it.

Also yeah, the Wii U really seems to have a rosy future, and this in their launch year where they should be doing well, before Sony and Microsoft steal all their thunder (although you will have to mentally strike Rayman: Legends now):

It's no wonder that UbiSoft doesn't want to release Rayman on an unattractive/decaying platform that has only managed to sell 3 Million units worldwide so far and has recently lowered their forecast for both platform and software sale considerably: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/technology/nintendo-warns-of-weak-wii-u-sales.htmlThey're not a charity and the developers are working for them and have presumably already been paid their salaries, ultimately its up to UbiSoft to make the publishing decision though (they could even entirely flush the game and never release it), and if the devs don't like that they can quit and form an independent team. UbiSoft tried to back the Wii U with "ZombiU", which was a title tailored to the specific platform, but likely didn't exactly produce the expected results and now they're rightfully backing down to protect their financial interests.

It's no wonder that UbiSoft doesn't want to release Rayman on an unattractive/decaying platform that has only managed to sell 3 Million units worldwide so far and has recently lowered their forecast for both platform and software sale considerably: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/technology/nintendo-warns-of-weak-wii-u-sales.htmlThey're not a charity and the developers are working for them and have presumably already been paid their salaries, ultimately its up to UbiSoft to make the publishing decision though (they could even entirely flush the game and never release it), and if the devs don't like that they can quit and form an independent team. UbiSoft tried to back the Wii U with "ZombiU", which was a title tailored to the specific platform, but likely didn't exactly produce the expected results and now they're rightfully backing down to protect their financial interests

In the time it's been out 3 million is still one of the best launches in the last few generations

so 3 million that were sold in the first 2 months means it is a bad console. Funny since ps3 nor the xbox 360 sold more then 2 million consoles in their first 2 months when the system launched. Also the wii U got 22 games compared to the 18 on the 360 and 11/12 for the ps3. Yeah the release of the wii U is really bad and the platform is doa.

Their Facebook page being spammed by people complaining that the game isn't exclusive anymore, they are "betraying" Nintendo and that "Nintendo needs this and $%§%& Ubisoft" tells an entirely different story. Unfortunately I can't find the picture of that anymore, or I would have posted it.

I refer you back to my other post in response to that, but that's not the main thing I'm responding to...

What Nintendo did with Bayonetta 2, which is taking a franchise a lot of people liked on the other consoles and paying off its developers to make it "Exclusive", cutting it off from its entire fanbase is much worse than making a game Multiplat or delaying it.

Yes, but you conveniently leave out that the alternative was the game not coming out at all.

dragongit:Yea, it sucks the game is delayed. You know what doesn't suck though? Not being forced to buy a Wii U in order to play it. Multi Platform games are usually better off in the long run for third party publishers then trying to be a console exclusive outside of their main brands. I understand though Legends was Designed with the touch controller in mind, so the framework of the game will be altered quite a bit for the other consoles.I understand the double edge sword here though, wait too long and people may loose interest.

I'd be more inclined to believe that if people didn't dislike the Wii U so irrationally that they both are happy that they got shafted out of an exclusive that they paid hard money to promote and support, and don't give a shit that they're porting other releases to itself. Apparently it's acceptable for Microsoft to have a stranglehold on popular releases, but when it's on the Wii U it's a crime, especially Bayonetta 2 which despite only existing because of Nintendo, is apparently greedy of them somehow.

These are different things. People whining about the game no longer being exclusive are being childish. But the point of this article is about the delay, not exclusivity. The team and fans just want to game released when it was supposed to, and not have to wait for a multiplatform release. That's not unreasonable, as the game is finished, the dev team did just go through a crunch to get it released, and the new release date is set around a time where game releases are typically quite crowded.

Edit: Oh, wait...a bunch of other people already said the same thing. I think I opened up this page a few hours ago, and only now got around to looking at it while forgetting to refresh.